BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

E.A.NO.32/2014

IN

C.C.No.32/2011

Between:

1.   Gorrela Poleru S/o. Late Krishnamma,

Aged about 63 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Servant,

R/o. 501, Meenakshi Parkside Apartment,

Yellareddyguda, Srinagar Colony,

Hyderabad – 500073.

2.   Dr. Gorrela Harsha S/o. Mr. Gorrela Poleru,

Aged about 33 years, Occ: medical Practitioner,

R/o. 501, Meenakshi Parkside Apartment,

Yellareddyguda, Srinagar Colony,

Hyderabad – 500073.                           …Petitioners / Complainants

And

1.   M/s. Mytas Properties Ltd.,

Reg. Office: 6-3-1186/5/A,

III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,

Hyderabad – 500016,

Rep. by its Managing Director.

2.   M/s. State Bank of India,

Yellareddyguda branch,

Srinagar Colony,

Hyderabad. 

Rep. by it’s Branch Manager.                  ….Respondents/ Opposite parties 

Counsel for the Petitioners / Complainants              :      Sri V.Gourisankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondents/ Opposite parties  :     Sri K.Vishweswar Reddy

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT 

           Sri Patil Vithal Rao  …         Member

         TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL,

                             TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .

Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Justice Sri. B.N.Rao Nalla, President).

                                                   ***

       Complainant and opposite parties are the parties in C.C.No.32/2011 on the file of Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Hyderabad.   It is reported that the matter is under consideration for settlement.

       Heard. Both sides stated that the matter has been compromised between the complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2 outside the court amicably.  Both of them have filed a Compromise Memo in which it is stated as follows:

         “As per the above stated Compromise Memo, both parties have agreed to settle the matter.  The above case has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of amount.

      As per memo stated that,

         In the light of the above said Settlement, the above CC has become in-fructuous and accordingly no purpose would be served if the above said C.C is kept pending”.

The memo is recorded. 

         In the circumstances, complaint is disposed of accordingly.  

PRESIDENT        MEMBER  

                                                                              Dt.18.04.2017